DOCSLIB.ORG

The Real Distinction Between Descriptions and Indexicals*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Real Distinction Between Descriptions and Indexicals* teorema Vol. XXIV/3, 2005, pp. 49-74 The Real Distinction between Descriptions and Indexicals* Manuel García-Carpintero ABSTRACT Some contemporary semantic views defend an asymmetry thesis concerning defi- nite descriptions and indexicals. Semantically, indexicals are devices of singular refer- ence; they contribute objects to the contents of the speech acts made with utterances including them. Definite descriptions, on the other hand, are generalized quantifiers, behaving roughly the way Russell envisaged in “On Denoting”. The asymmetry thesis depends on the existence of a sufficiently clear-cut distinction between semantics and pragmatics, because indexicals and descriptions are often used in ways that apparently contradict the asymmetry thesis; the semantics/pragmatics distinction is invoked to see behind the appearances. The paper critically examines arguments by Schiffer against the asymmetry thesis, based on referential uses of incomplete descriptions. RESUMEN Algunas teorías semánticas contemporáneas defienden una tesis de asimetría respecto de las descripciones definidas y los indéxicos. Semánticamente, los indéxicos son instrumentos de referencia singular; contribuyen con objetos a los contenidos de los actos del habla que se llevan a cabo por medio de ellos. Las descripciones defini- das, por su parte, son cuantificadores generalizados, que se comportan a grandes ras- gos como Russell indicara en “On Denoting”. La tesis de la asimetría depende de la existencia de una distinción suficientemente clara entre semántica y pragmática, dado que tanto los indéxicos como las descripciones definidas se usan a menudo de mane- ras que parecen contradecirla; se invoca entonces la distinción entre semántica y pragmática para reconciliarla con las apariencias. El trabajo examina críticamente ar- gumentos recientes de S. Schiffer contra la tesis de asimetría, que se apoyan en usos referenciales de descripciones incompletas. In contemporary semantics an asymmetry thesis is hold concerning the behaviour of, respectively, definite descriptions and indexicals. Semantically, indexicals are devices of singular reference; they contribute objects to the contents of the speech acts made with utterances including them. Definite de- scriptions, on the other hand, are generalized quantifiers, behaving roughly the way Russell envisaged in “On Denoting”. The asymmetry thesis depends on the existence of a sufficiently clear- cut distinction between semantics and pragmatics, because indexicals and de- 49 50 Manuel García-Carpintero scriptions are often used in ways that apparently contradict the asymmetry thesis; the semantics/pragmatics distinction is invoked to see behind the ap- pearances. There are Donnellan’s “referential uses” of descriptions [Donnellan (1966)]; and there are descriptive uses of indexicals, Kaplan’s “monsters” [Kaplan (1989a)]. Defenders of the asymmetry thesis hold that these are non- semantic phenomena, a form of conversational implicature; for descriptions, Grice [Grice (1969)], Kripke [Kripke (1977)], Evans [Evans (1982)] and Neale [Neale (1990)] provided supporting arguments. It is therefore no sur- prise that writers who question the relevance or the very existence of the se- mantics/pragmatics distinction (whom I refer to as pragmaticists) argue against the asymmetry thesis. In this paper I will critically examine argu- ments by one of these writers, Schiffer [Schiffer (1995)], based on referential uses of incomplete descriptions. In so far as his arguments are symptomatic of the pragmaticist (mis)conception of language, we can learn a more general lesson from its weaknesses. I. THE ASYMMETRY THESIS STATED There is a very simple way of making the semantics/pragmatics distinc- tion and then stating relative to it the asymmetry thesis, which is unfortu- nately incorrect. According to this view, semantics has just to do with compositionally ascribing truth-conditions to sentences; anything involving speakers’ intentions is a matter for pragmatics to care about. From this per- spective, indexicals are semantically like Millian names, characterized by Kripke thus: “According to Mill, a proper name is, so to speak, simply a name. It simply refers to its bearer, and has no other linguistic function. In particular, unlike a definite description, a name does not describe its bearer as possessing any special identifying properties” [Kripke (1979), pp. 239-40]. Larson and Segal [Larson and Segal (1996), pp. 197-221] extend this view to indexicals. Unfortunately, I do not think that the contrast that the asymmetry thesis claims to exist is that simple. I do not think that proper names are Mil- lian; I believe that it is part of their function to describe their referent as hav- ing special identifying properties, and that this is a semantic, linguistic matter. Intuitively, the same applies even more obviously to indexicals. Here is a reason. Competent speakers of English recognize the validity of the following inferences; if someone does not recognize their validity, that prima facie disqualifies him as a competent speaker of English: (1) He is hungry ∴ Some male is hungry The Real Distinction between Descriptions and Indexicals 51 (2) That pot is empty ∴ Some pot is empty (3) You are angry ∴ Someone in the audience is angry Competent speakers possessing the relevant concepts also recognize the tautological character of the following sentences: (4) He is whoever is most salient male when that very token of ‘he’ is uttered (5) That pot is whatever is most salient pot when that very token of ‘that pot’ is uttered (6) You are whoever is addressed when that very token of ‘you’ is uttered In order to capture this point (the point, as he put it, that there is a logic of indexicals) while still holding the asymmetry thesis, Kaplan [Kaplan (1989a), (1989b)] ascribed to indexicals not only a referent as content, but also descriptive features as character, and suggested a more complex way of making the semantics/pragmatics distinction than the one just outlined. Kaplan [Kaplan (1989b)] distinguished the descriptive features associated with indexi- cals constituting their character, which belong in a semantic account of a lan- guage, from other descriptive features associated with them (and from every descriptive feature associated with proper names), which in his view belong only in a metasemantic account. Stalnaker [Stalnaker (1997)] makes a similar distinction with a different terminology, between descriptive and foundational linguistic matters. I will borrow from Kaplan’s and Stalnaker’s suggestions. Lewis [Lewis (1983)] distinguished languages (and theoretical accounts thereof) understood as abstract objects, which may or may not be actually used, from languages seen as actually spoken by a given individual or population. In this vein I distinguish, firstly, a (linguistic-descriptive) theoretical characteriza- tion of an abstract language intended to have the constitutive features necessary and sufficient for it to count as a given natural language, i.e., to fully character- ize the language used by a given population; and, secondly, a (linguistic- foundational) theoretical characterization of facts such that a given abstract language is indeed used by a given population. Different views on what Schiffer [Schiffer (1993)] calls “the actual-language relation” would provide different elaborations on this distinction, but we can suggest some relatively non-contentious illustration. Thus, general psychological facts regarding memory, attention, and perceptual or procedural capacities will have to be 52 Manuel García-Carpintero invoked in a foundational characterization that a given population uses a given abstract language; for, together with language mastery, those general psychological capacities are a crucial causal factor of language use. Simi- larly, something like the Gricean conversational maxims will have to be in- voked in a foundational characterization that a given population uses a given abstract language; for once again, together with language mastery they are, at least in some cases (those involving undisputed cases of conversational im- plicatures), a crucial causal factor of language use. None of them, however, belong in a descriptive account.1 This framework, I submit, provides a taxonomically (and therefore theoretically) more accurate way of tracing the semantics/pragmatics distinc- tion than the simplistic one previously outlined: semantics is part of descrip- tive linguistics; pragmatics rather belongs in foundational linguistics. That this is more accurate can be seen in that, for instance, it allows us to plausibly contend both that moods (interrogative, imperative, indicative and so on) do not make truth-conditional contributions, and also that it is part of semantics, not pragmatics, to account for them. Davidsonian partisans of the view that semantics has just to do with the compositional determination of truth- conditions dispute this; but their view goes against intuition, Davidson’s [Davidson (1979)] arguments for it are fallacious, and in any case it should not be established just by a not merely stipulative definition.2 In addition to a non-truth-conditional view of the illocutionary forces signified by moods, the present proposal allows us to count conventional im- plicatures and presuppositions conventionally conveyed by expressions as phenomena for a semantic account to care about, not for a pragmatic one; and this is crucial for my purposes, because in my own view those phenomena provide the proper
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantic Analysis on Sense of Ambiguity in the Headline Printed the Jakarta Post Published on March 13Th– April 13Th , 2015
    SEMANTIC ANALYSIS ON SENSE OF AMBIGUITY IN THE HEADLINE PRINTED THE JAKARTA POST PUBLISHED ON MARCH 13TH– APRIL 13TH , 2015 Erisa Kurniati Batanghari University [email protected] ABSTRACT This research was aim to find out the ambiguity which found in the headline of The Jakarta Post based on semantic analysis first classify it which one the most ambiguous (word, phrase or sentence), then the last interpret the sense of ambiguity based on semantic analysis. The researcher collected 100 data of headlines then reduced it into 10 data purposively the most ambiguous. There are 6 data of ambiguity interpreted into two interpretations and 4 data of ambiguity interpreted into three interpretations. From 10 data, the data researcher found a lexical ambiguity in the headlines of The Jakarta Post published on March 13th – April 13th, 2015. Key words: Semantic Analysis, Sense of Ambiguity. A. Background of the Study Nowadays, there are many ways to communicate with other due to the developments of technology. There are many media, whether electronic or printed media to share information and to keep in touch with the other. People can get the information about the development of the world and everything happens in a day from electronic and printed media. Newspaper, especially daily newspaper, has a big contribution for the people to get information about local or international events everyday because the news and information are up to date and accurate. As a consequence, there are many daily newspapers published in Indonesia and one of the daily English Newspaper is The Jakarta Post. Generally, people communicate perfectly and completely.
    [Show full text]
  • Puzzles About Descriptive Names Edward Kanterian
    Puzzles about descriptive names Edward Kanterian To cite this version: Edward Kanterian. Puzzles about descriptive names. Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer Verlag, 2010, 32 (4), pp.409-428. 10.1007/s10988-010-9066-1. hal-00566732 HAL Id: hal-00566732 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00566732 Submitted on 17 Feb 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Linguist and Philos (2009) 32:409–428 DOI 10.1007/s10988-010-9066-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Puzzles about descriptive names Edward Kanterian Published online: 17 February 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract This article explores Gareth Evans’s idea that there are such things as descriptive names, i.e. referring expressions introduced by a definite description which have, unlike ordinary names, a descriptive content. Several ignored semantic and modal aspects of this idea are spelled out, including a hitherto little explored notion of rigidity, super-rigidity. The claim that descriptive names are (rigidified) descriptions, or abbreviations thereof, is rejected. It is then shown that Evans’s theory leads to certain puzzles concerning the referential status of descriptive names and the evaluation of identity statements containing them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): Mathematician, Logician, and Philosopher
    Louis deRosset { Spring 2019 Russell: The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): mathematician, logician, and philosopher. He's one of the founders of analytic philosophy. \On Denoting" is a founding document of analytic philosophy. It is a paradigm of philosophical analysis. An analysis of a concept/phenomenon c: a recipe for eliminating c-vocabulary from our theories which still captures all of the facts the c-vocabulary targets. FOR EXAMPLE: \The Name View Analysis of Identity." 2. Russell's target: Denoting Phrases By a \denoting phrase" I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. (479) Includes: • universals: \all F 's" (\each"/\every") • existentials: \some F " (\at least one") • indefinite descriptions: \an F " • definite descriptions: \the F " Later additions: • negative existentials: \no F 's" (480) • Genitives: \my F " (\your"/\their"/\Joe's"/etc.) (484) • Empty Proper Names: \Apollo", \Hamlet", etc. (491) Russell proposes to analyze denoting phrases. 3. Why Analyze Denoting Phrases? Russell's Project: The distinction between acquaintance and knowledge about is the distinction between the things we have presentation of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. [. ] In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of a more abstract logical character; but we do not necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meanings we are ac- quainted.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ambiguous Nature of Language
    International J. Soc. Sci. & Education 2017 Vol.7 Issue 4, ISSN: 2223-4934 E and 2227-393X Print The Ambiguous Nature of Language By Mohammad Awwad Applied Linguistics, English Department, Lebanese University, Beirut, LEBANON. [email protected] Abstract Linguistic ambiguity is rendered as a problematic issue since it hinders precise language processing. Ambiguity leads to a confusion of ideas in the reader’s mind when he struggles to decide on the precise meaning intended behind an utterance. In the literature relevant to the topic, no clear classification of linguistic ambiguity can be traced, for what is considered syntactic ambiguity, for some linguists, falls under pragmatic ambiguity for others; what is rendered as lexical ambiguity for some linguists is perceived as semantic ambiguity for others and still as unambiguous to few. The problematic issue, hence, can be recapitulated in the abstruseness hovering around what is linguistic ambiguity, what is not, and what comprises each type of ambiguity in language. The present study aimed at propounding lucid classification of ambiguity types according to their function in context by delving into ambiguity types which are displayed in English words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. converges in an attempt to disambiguate English language structures, and thus provide learners with a better language processing outcome and enhance teachers with a more facile and lucid teaching task. Keywords: linguistic ambiguity, language processing. 1. Introduction Ambiguity is derived from ‘ambiagotatem’ in Latin which combined ‘ambi’ and ‘ago’ each word meaning ‘around’ or ‘by’ (Atlas,1989) , and thus the concept of ambiguity is hesitation, doubt, or uncertainty and that concept associated the term ‘ambiguous’ from the first usage until the most recent linguistic definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Theory of Descriptions
    Russell’s theory of descriptions PHIL 83104 September 5, 2011 1. Denoting phrases and names ...........................................................................................1 2. Russell’s theory of denoting phrases ................................................................................3 2.1. Propositions and propositional functions 2.2. Indefinite descriptions 2.3. Definite descriptions 3. The three puzzles of ‘On denoting’ ..................................................................................7 3.1. The substitution of identicals 3.2. The law of the excluded middle 3.3. The problem of negative existentials 4. Objections to Russell’s theory .......................................................................................11 4.1. Incomplete definite descriptions 4.2. Referential uses of definite descriptions 4.3. Other uses of ‘the’: generics 4.4. The contrast between descriptions and names [The main reading I gave you was Russell’s 1919 paper, “Descriptions,” which is in some ways clearer than his classic exposition of the theory of descriptions, which was in his 1905 paper “On Denoting.” The latter is one of the optional readings on the web site, and I reference it below sometimes as well.] 1. DENOTING PHRASES AND NAMES Russell defines the class of denoting phrases as follows: “By ‘denoting phrase’ I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present king of England, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the sun around the earth. Thus a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form.” (‘On Denoting’, 479) Russell’s aim in this article is to explain how expressions like this work — what they contribute to the meanings of sentences containing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Theory of Descriptions
    Russell’s theory of descriptions September 23, 2004 1 Propositions and propositional functions . 1 2 Descriptions and names . 3 2.1 Indefinite descriptions do not stand for particular objects in the same waynamesdo ............................... 3 2.2 Three puzzles caused by the assimilation of definite descriptions to names . 4 2.2.1 The problem of negative existentials . 4 2.2.2 Substitution failures . 5 2.2.3 The law of the excluded middle . 5 2.3 The distinction between primary and secondary occurrence . 5 3 Russell’s theory of descriptions . 6 3.1 Indefinite descriptions . 6 3.2 Definite descriptions . 6 3.3 ‘Everyone’, ‘someone’ . 7 3.4 Strengths of Russell’s theory . 7 4 Objections to Russell’s theory . 7 4.1 Incomplete definite descriptions . 7 4.2 Other uses of ‘the’: generics . 7 4.3 The view that sentences containing descriptions say something about propositional functions . 8 5 Russell’s view of names . 8 6 The metaphysical importance of Russell’s theory . 8 1 Propositions and propositional functions Russell (unlike contemporary theorists) means by ‘proposition’, as he puts it, “pri- marily a form of words which expresses what is either true or false.” Roughly, then, ‘propositions’ in Russell refers to ‘declarative sentences.’ Propositional functions are something else: “A ‘propositional function,’ in fact, is an expression containing one or more undetermined constituents, such that, when values are assigned to 1 these constituents, the expression becomes a proposition. Examples of propositional functions are easy to give: “x is human” is a propositional function; so long as x remains undetermined, it is neither true nor false, but when a value is assigned to x it becomes a true or false proposition.” (An Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Modality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface
    Modality and the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface Anna Papafragou Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D. University College London 1998 (LONDON) To my family with love and gratitude Abstract This thesis explores certain aspects of the structure of lexical semantics and its interaction with pragmatic processes of utterance comprehension, using as a case-study a sample of the English modal verbs. Contrary to previous polysemy-based accounts, I propose and defend a unitary semantic account of the English modals, and I give a relevance-theoretic explanation of the construction of their admissible (mainly, root and epistemic) contextual interpretations. Departing from previous accounts of modality, I propose a link between epistemic modality and metarepresentation, and treat the emergence of epistemic modal markers as a result of the development of the human theory of mind. In support of my central contention that the English modals are semantically univocal, I reanalyse a range of arguments employed by previous polysemy-based approaches. These arguments involve the distributional properties of the modals, their relationship to truth-conditional content, the status of so-called speech-act modality, and the historical development of epistemic meanings: it turns out that none of these domains can offer reasons to abandon the univocal semantic analysis of the English modals. Furthermore, I argue that the priority of root over epistemic meanings in language acquisition is predicted by the link between epistemic modality and metarepresentation. Finally, data from a cognitive disorder (autism) are considered in the light of the metarepresentation hypothesis about epistemic modality. The discussion of modality has a number of implications for the concept of polysemy.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert C. Stalnaker*
    ROBERT C. STALNAKER* A THEORY OF CONDITIONALS I. INTRODUCTION A conditional sentence expresses a proposition which is a function of two other propositions, yet not one which is a truth function of those prop­ ositions. I may know the truth values of "Willie Mays played in the American League" and "Willie Mays hit four hundred" without knowing whether or not Mays. would have hit four hundred if he had played in the American League. This fact has tended to puzzle, displease, or delight philosophers, and many have felt that it is a fact that calls for some comment or explanation. It has given rise to a number of philosophical problems; I shall discuss three of these. My principal concern will be with what has been called the logical problem of conditionals, a problem that frequently is ignored or dismissed by writers on conditionals and counterfactuals. This is the task of describing the formal properties of the conditional function: a function, usually represented in English by the words "if ... then", taking ordered pairs of propositions into propositions. I shall explain informally and defend a solution, presented more rigorously elsewhere, to this problem.l The second issue - the one that has dominated recent discussions of con· trary-to-fact conditionals - is the pragmatic problem of counterfactuals. This problem derives from the belief, which I share with most philosophers writing about this topic, that the formal properties of the conditional function, together with all of the facts, may not be sufficient for determining the truth value of a counterfactual; that is, different truth values of conditional state­ ments may be consistent with a single valuation of all nonconditional state­ ments.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Identity, Indexicality, and the Appropriation of Slurs
    Croatian Journal of Philosophy Vol. XVII, No. 50, 2017 Social Identity, Indexicality, and the Appropriation of Slurs KATHERINE RITCHIE City College of New York, CUNY, New York, USA Slurs are expressions that can be used to demean and dehumanize tar- gets based on their membership in racial, ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual orientation groups. Almost all treatments of slurs posit that they have derogatory content of some sort. Such views—which I call content- based—must explain why in cases of appropriation slurs fail to express their standard derogatory contents. A popular strategy is to take ap- propriated slurs to be ambiguous; they have both a derogatory content and a positive appropriated content. However, if appropriated slurs are ambiguous, why can only members in the target group use them to ex- press a non-offensive/positive meaning? Here, I develop and motivate an answer that could be adopted by any content-based theorist. I argue that appropriated contents of slurs include a plural fi rst-person pronoun. I show how the semantics of pronouns like ‘we’ can be put to use to explain why only some can use a slur to express its appropriated content. More- over, I argue that the picture I develop is motivated by the process of appropriation and helps to explain how it achieves its aims of promoting group solidarity and positive group identity. Keywords: Slurs, appropriation, reclamation, indexicals, social groups. Slurs are expressions that can be used to demean and dehumanize tar- gets based on their membership in social groups based on, e.g., race, * I thank audiences at the Dartmouth Mind and Language Workshop and the Dubrovnik Inter-University Center Philosophy of Language and Linguistics Workshop where I presented earlier versions of this paper for their helpful feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Atomism in Russell and Wittgenstein
    OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 04/15/11, SPi c h a p t e r 1 0 logical atomism in russell and wittgenstein i a n p r o o p s I n t r o d u c t i o n Russell and Wittgenstein develop diff erent, though closely related, versions of a posi- tion that has come to be known as ‘logical atomism’. Wittgenstein’s version is presented in the Tractatus , and discussed in the various pre-Tractatus manuscripts. Russell’s is pre- sented most fully in a set of eight lectures given in Gordon Square, London in early 1918. Th ese lectures, which are familiar to us today under the title ‘Th e Philosophy of Logical Atomism’ (Russell 1918/1956 : 175–281 , hereaft er ‘PLA’), were originally serialized in the Monist during the years 1918 and 1919. In them Russell attempts to synthesize his own ideas with those of Wittgenstein’s 1913 Notes on Logic . Although PLA is oft en treated as the defi nitive presentation of Russell’s logical atomism, we should not forget that Russell had already arrived at many elements of this doctrine before he encountered Wittgenstein. Th is earlier, pure Russellian, brand of logical atomism is fi rst set out in Russell’s 1911 article ‘Analytical Realism’ 1 —a text in which the phrase ‘logical atomism’ appears for the fi rst time. (See Monk 1996 , 200 .) It is further developed in certain chap- ters of the Problems of Philosophy of 1912. 2 Analytical realism, Russell explains, is a form of atomism because it maintains—in contrast to the British Hegelianism of Bradley, McTaggart, Joachim, and others,3 fi rst, 1 Th is work was composed in the summer of 1911, and so before Russell’s fi rst encounter with Wittgenstein.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic (I N)D Eterminacy in the Legal Context 1
    Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5.2 (2009): 201-226 DOI: 10.2478/v10016-009-0013-y Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka ∗ University of Łódź A NOTE ON THE LINGUISTIC (I N)D ETERMINACY IN THE LEGAL CONTEXT 1 Abstract This paper discusses linguistic vagueness in the context of a semantically restricted domain of legal language. It comments on selected aspects of vagueness found in contemporary English normative legal texts and on terminological problems related to vagueness and indeterminacy both in the legal domain and language in general. The discussion is illustrated with selected corpus examples of vagueness in English legal language and attempts to show problems of the relation between vagueness and ambiguity in the context of legal institutionalised systems. The discussion also evokes theoretical issues which pertain to the relation between legal texts and their contexts, the problem of how linguistic forms acquire their contextual meaning and how linguistic expressions are disambiguated. These issues are further related to the post- Gricean theory of relevance, its inferential model of communication, and the interplay between the linguistic code and inferential processes in (specialised) communication. Keywords vagueness, legal language, indeterminacy, relevance ∗ Department of Pragmatics, University of Łódź, Al. Kościuszki 65, 90-514, Łódź, Poland, e-mail: [email protected] 1 I am honestly grateful to Robyn Carston for inviting me to participate in the Language and Law conference in the Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature, Oslo, Norway in June 2008, where I had a unique opportunity to find both creative people and stimulating ideas. 202 Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka A Note on the Linguistic (In)Determinacy in the Legal Context 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Choice Disjunction As a Rational Speech Act*
    Proceedings of SALT 29: 238–257, 2019 Free choice disjunction as a rational speech act* Lucas Champollion Anna Alsop New York University New York University Ioana Grosu New York University Abstract The so-called free choice inference (from You may take an apple or a pear to You may take an apple) is mysterious because it does not follow from ordinary modal logic. We show that this inference arises in the Rational Speech Act framework (Frank & Goodman 2012). Our basic idea is inspired by exhaustification- based models of free choice (Fox 2007) and by game-theoretic accounts based on iterated best response (Franke 2011). We assume that when the speaker utters You may take an apple or a pear, the hearer reasons about why the speaker did not choose alternative utterances such as You may take an apple. A crucial ingredient in our explanation is the idea of semantic uncertainty (Bergen, Levy & Goodman 2016). Specifically, we assume that the speaker is uncertain whether or not the hearer will interpret You may take an apple as forbidding them from taking a pear. This uncertainty can be thought of as resulting from Fox’s (2007) optional covert exhaustification. Uttering the disjunction is a way for the speaker to prevent the hearer from concluding that any fruit is forbidden to take. Knowing this, the hearer concludes that they may choose either fruit. Keywords: free choice, disjunction, Gricean reasoning, Bayesian inference, game theory, RSA, quantity implicature, utterance ambiguity 1 Introduction When a disjunction is embedded under a modal as in (1a), it conveys (1b) and (1c): (1) a.
    [Show full text]